Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case Number: 23CHCV00320, Date: 2024-06-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV00320, Date: 2024-06-18 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 23CHCV00320 Hearing Date: June 18, 2024 Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 6/18/24 TRIAL DATE: 12/2/24

Case #23CHCV00320

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Request for Production of Documents, Set 1)

Motion filed on 11/27/23.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Raul Camacho Gutierrez

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant General Motors, LLC

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order striking Defendant General Motors, LLC’s objections and to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set 1, Nos. 7, 10, 16, 18-21, 36 and 38.

RULING: The motion is granted.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of Plaintiff Raul Camacho’s (Plaintiff) purchase of a 2022 Chevrolet Silverado (the Vehicle) on 10/18/22. Plaintiff alleges that during the warranty period, the Vehicle contained or developed defects, including the Transmission Defect. Plaintiff presented the Vehicle to Defendant General Motors LLC’s (Defendant) authorized dealership on at least 4 occasions regarding the Transmission Defect within the first 6 months of ownership. Plaintiff contends that none of the repair attempts permanently repaired the Transmission Defect.

Defendant has issued several Technical Service Bulletins (TSBs) regarding the Transmission Defects and prescribing repairs. (See Oliva Decl., Ex.2-5).

On 12/21/22, Plaintiff requested that Defendant repurchase or replace the Vehicle under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. (Oliva Decl. ¶14). Defendant refused Plaintiff’s request. Id. Therefore, on 2/3/23, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant alleging various causes of action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. On 3/13/23, Defendant answered the complaint.

On 8/21/23, Plaintiff served Defendant with Request for Production of Documents, Set 1. (Oliva Decl., Ex.6). On 9/20/23, Defendant served, by email, unverified responses to the requests without producing any documents. (Id., Ex.7). On or about 10/10/23, Defendant served verifications for the responses and produced documents. Plaintiff found Defendant’s responses to and production regarding Requests 7, 10, 16, 18-21, 36 and 38 to be deficient.

After meet and confer efforts failed to resolve this discovery dispute and extensions of time to file and serve a motion to compel further responses, on 11/27/23, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking an order striking Defendant’s objections and compelling further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set 1, Nos. 7, 10, 16, 18-21, 36 and 38. (See Oliva Decl. ¶¶20-29, Ex.8-15). Defendant has opposed the motion and Plaintiff has filed a reply to the opposition.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s objections (numbers 1-4) to the declaration of Alexandria Pappas filed in support of the opposition are overruled.

A party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the action or to the determination of any motion made in the action, if the matter itself is admissible or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See CCP 2017.010. Doubts as to relevance are generally resolved in favor of allowing discovery. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. (1982) 31 C3d 785, 790.

CCP 2031.310(a) provides:

“On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”

The Court finds that Plaintiff adequately met and conferred before filing the instant motion. (See Oliva Decl. ¶¶20-29, Ex.8-15)

To prevail on a claim brought under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the Act), a plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, several elements, including nonconformity of a vehicle that substantially impaired its use, value or safety; presentation of the vehicle to the manufacturer or authorized representative for repair; and failure to repair the defect after a reasonable number of attempts. Ibrahim (1989) 214 CA3d 878, 886-887; Oregel (2001) 90 CA4th 1094, 1101; Lundy (2001) 87 CA4th 472, 478.

Additionally, under the Act, a buyer may recover damages and other relief when there has been a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability if the vehicle was sold with a known defect. Civil Code 1794(a); Mexia (2009) 174 CA4th 1297, 1304-1305. Further, a buyer may be entitled to a civil penalty upon a showing that the manufacturer willfully failed to abide by any of its obligations under the Act. Civil Code 1794(c).

The subject requests seek documents relevant to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant under the Act including issues related to Defendant’s good faith compliance with the Act. As such, Plaintiff has provided sufficient facts to establish the requisite good cause for production of the subject documents. See CCP 2031.310(b)(1).

The documents sought in Requests 7, 36 and 38 relate to Defendant’s warranty and vehicle repurchase policies, procedures, and practices. (Oliva Decl. ¶17, Ex.6). Such documents, or lack thereof, may provide information as to whether Defendant has a policy which violates the Act. See Oregel (1995) 90 CA4th 1094, 1104; Johnson (2005) 35 C4th 1191, 1200; Kwan (1994) 23 CA4th 174, 186.

The documents sought in Requests 10, 16 and 18-21 relate to Defendant’s internal investigations and analysis of the Transmission Defect affecting Plaintiff’s vehicle and establishing Defendant previously knew of such defects yet still refused to repurchase the vehicle. (Oliva Decl. ¶17, Ex.6). The requested documents will assist in establishing that Defendant was aware of the Transmission Defect; that the Transmission Defect is ongoing; that Defendant lacks the means to fix the defect; and that despite the foregoing Defendant failed and continues to fail to repurchase and/or replace the Vehicle in violation of the Act.

Information regarding vehicles other than Plaintiff’s vehicle is relevant to the subject matter of this action as it could assist Plaintiff in proving Defendant’s willful violation of the Act. Documents responsive to such requests may reasonably lead to the discovery of information as to the nature and duration of the defects, Defendant’s knowledge of the defects, and Defendant’s inability to repair the defects. While cases relied on by Plaintiff (i.e., Donlen (2013) 217 CA4th 138 and Doppes (2009) 174 CA4th 967) may not involve the exact circumstance before this Court, they are sufficient to show that the requested information could itself be admissible or lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case. Similarly, evidence regarding Defendant’s practices in handling consumer complaints is relevant to determining whether Defendant willfully violated the Act when it refused to repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle. Johnson, supra at 1198-1199; Oregel, supra at 1094; Kwan, supra at 186.

Defendant’s objections lack merit and/or have not been properly supported. As set forth above, the documents sought are relevant and/or could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Therefore, the requests are not irrelevant or overbroad. The requests are also not vague and/or ambiguous. Defendant has also failed to establish that responding to any of the subject requests would be overly burdensome or oppressive. To the extent that documents are being withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine, Defendant is required to

provide a privilege log. See CCP 2031.240(c). Defendant has failed to establish that the documents sought contain confidential and/or propriety information and that dissemination of the information would result in injury. See Nativi (2014) 223 CA4th 261, 318. To the extent that any of the requests actually seek confidential, proprietary and/or trade secret information, the Court finds that the protective order entered between the parties will adequately protect Defendant’s interests. (See Oliva Decl. ¶25, Ex.13; Protective Order signed/granted 11/7/23).

While Defendant may have produced additional documents in response to certain of the requests at issue (i.e., Requests 7, 10, 19, 36, 38), Defendant has not served further written responses. (Oliva Decl. ¶26). As such, it is not clear whether any documents are being withheld on the bases of the unmeritorious objections included in the written responses.

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted. Defendant is ordered to produce further written responses and to produce documents in accordance therewith within the next 30 days.